Untitled

New Zealand Tablet, Volume I, Issue 41, 7 February 1874, Page 5

Our heading is a simple one, and not very suggestive. This arises from the difficulty we experience in finding a few words capable of designating, the drift of two leaders, lately published in the ' Guardian ' — oneiu the issue of the 2Lst, the other in that of the 30th ult. Such headings a3 the following might have been selected — Tho ' Guardian ' and. Bible Reading— The ' Guardian ' and Papal Infallibility — ■ The ' Guardian ' and tho Old Catholics — The 'Guardian' and Shams — The ' Guardian ' and the Perfect System — The ' Guardian ' an<l tho Hypocritical and Neglectful Chrgy — The ' Guardian' Suggests the Proaji-ution of the Tablet. In these two articles tho 'Guardian' discusser a multitude of topics, and in every instance in a tone anything but complimentary to the clergy. We ar_> not the apologists of the clergy in general ; nor do wo undertake to defend even the Catholic clergy, unless when to do so iaa duty. If even these are guilty of shortcomings, so far from defending them* none will be found inor? severe on them than ourselves, lliit in' the argumentation of our contemporary, there is a transitus a genere ad <ipnm We discuss principles, laws, and policy, instead of answering us the 'Guardian' assails the conduct of the cler y in general. Thu*, "We ask the Tablet and those who clamour for the right of the clergy to go into the public schools and impart religious instruction there, to make good their position on the score of necessity. Have :he tk-rgy exhausted all the means at their disposal for (ho religious instruction of the young under their spiritual care ? Have they worked up to the standard of official duty which they tacitly recognise? Have they fully occupied" the ground which they may cover ? When they are in liuit position they may come forward with clean hands t ■ toe -State, aud press their claim to supenise the religious training of children attending State schools." Tho ' GuarJi -n ' thjn declares any demand of this sort to be the '' very es-.cp.ee of a sham — the most despicable aud offensive kind of nil — a religious sham." The ' Guardian ' continues, " i)>vs nny one mean to tell us that the clergy are in tin.-, po-ifiou Where are the proofs of it ? Are these to !>e found in large and capacious churches closed tho week through, except for a few hours of formal worship — t!u fully • ullv maybe iv a position to enlighten us, however. Until tnat has been done we shall hold by our previously expressed opinion, that the agitation, by the clergy, for ti.e right of olli.ci.il interference with the course of m^ru. turn iv pubiic schools is a mere pretence, the real object oei.ig !_> , identify the clergy in the popular mind, with the idri of religious instruction, and thus continue t:n^uj;i popular superstition, the influence of a priestly east.- The airu^lo is for the supremacy of coclesiasticidui ; that oujo A^orio I "religious instruction would be left to take care of itself."

Tho above is only a very small instalment of the numerous evidences of our contemporary's sjiisd 'ji' justice vi reforenee to the clergy, and of his inspect, lot 1 tuo eutim body. In his estimation they have all ;;ro>sly neglected their duty, are all shams, and will certainly continue to bi*. what they have hitherto been. Highly compliment] ry,, indeed! We shall leave to the clergy oi.wl du.ionuiwtioiM the duty of repelling the charges brought against tnem by our highly religious contemporary — the ' Otago GuarJian V Our couteution throughout has been in rol'ereiicj fco a. principle; our objection has been to a la our mind reason and experience must certainly teach that a Godless system of education can only rear up a Godless generation of men and women, and that no amount of care, energy, and labour on the part of the clergy aud par outs . ,

will suffice entirely to counteract the pernicious influence of Q-odless schools. The " Guardian ' meets this argument by a gross personal attack on the clergy of all denominations. The argument of the ' Guardian ' amounts to this, a secular, or, in other words, a Godless system of education is good, nay, the best, because the clergy of all denominations neglect their duty, and that there is neglect he takes for granted. Perhaps there is neglect, it is not impossible that even the clergy themselves would readily admit they might do more in the way of instructing the young than they have done. But even admitting this, the neglect of the clergy does not prove the excellence of Godless schools, and it appears a rather strange way to cure the evil effects of the neglect of the clergy in imparting religious instruction, to exclude from schools all idea of Christianity, and even of God. If the writer of this article in the ' Guardian,' from which we have taken the above extract, denies the existence of God, or the divinity of Christianity, we can understand him ; but if he believes in Christianity, he is unintelligible. The position of our contemporary in reference to education appears to us somewhat strange, and not very consistent. He will hardly deny that he is an advocate of a secular system ; and yet he strenuously defends the Otago system, which is practically a religious and a denominational system. It is well nigh impossible for any but Presbyterians to secure appointments as teachers in the important schools of the Province. The Board of Education, the Committee generally, and the teachers almost everywhere are, it may be said, exclusively Presbyterians, unless, indeed, here and there where some avowed infidels are to be met with. Then the law recognises and embodies the essentially Protestant principle, that people are to read the Bible without note or comment, and thus learn religion. The * Guardian,' therefore, blows cold and hot at the same time. If he is a secularist he cannot consistently defend the Otago system, and if he t is a genuine supporter of the Otago Bystem he cannot be a secularist. Some time ago the ' Guardian ' stated that iv Otago all sects are equal in the eye of the law. This we denied, and said that according to the law now in force in Otago on the subject of education, " national schoolmasters are obliged to read the Bible daily in the schools, to such children as are not withdrawn by their parents from such readings. This is a penal law necessarily excluding all Catholics from the office of schoolmaster. Here, then, is an inequality imposed on Catholics by law. All sects, therefore, are not equal in the eye of the law." The ' G-uardian ' replies, " this reasoning is fallacious unless it be held by the Tablet, that the reading of the Bible constitutes a deadly sin. But the Roman Catholic Church admits that the Bible is the revelation of the divine will, a knowledge of which is essential to salvation ; wherefore, the leading of the Biblo daily in schools to children should be encouraged by the Komish Church, which claims the right of giving religious instruction to children in our national schools." The argument of our contemporary is, that we admit the Bible to contain the revelation of the divine will ; therefore, we should not only not object to, but eucourage the reading of the Protestant Bible daily to Catholic children in schools by Protestants, or it may be infidel teachers, and that, consequently, there is no penal law. But our ideas of our duties are very different from those of the ' Guardian.' In the first place Catholics do not recognise tho authorised version to be the true Bible ; in the second place Catholics require a guarantee of the soundness of the faith of those to whom they entrust the teaching of their children in religion ; in the third place they believe that the commission to teach religion has been given by God, not to the State, not to the schoolmasters, but to the Church ; and that, consequently, they cannot permit any to instruct their children in religion except such as are authorised by the Church to do so So far, therefore, from eivo muging the reading of the Bible in the Otago Schooiu to their children, Catholics are bound to discourage and prevent aueL reading, as being dangerous, Unauthorised and ii v< Iviug an unchristian principle. And it ia for tlii • iv^on, too, that Catholics cannot, consistently with their religious principle--, hold the office of teachers in these s'-Lcj"? if bound to read the Bible to the pupila. To do so v.'oaU bo to acknowledge the authority of the State to teach religion, to decide which is the correct version of the Bible, to recognise the Protestant principle, that the Bible, the v/hole Bible, and nothing but the Bible jls the rule of faith and judge of controversies, and that

men are to learn religion from the Eible independently of the authority of the Church; to repudiate tradition as entering'into the rule of faith j and, consequently, to reject the faith and authority of the . Catholic Church, which, amounts to apostacy. The education law, therefore, in Otago is a penal law so far as Catholics are concerned. They are obliged, consequently, to pay for their own injury and degradation. Our contemporary says he is not opposed to denomin* ationalism, because he is willing to allow the several denominations to build and maintain schools for themselves* and teach in them their own religion. This is very liberal and considerate, indeed ! How grateful we all ought to be to the liberal ' Guardian,' so just and so considerate ! But he will tax all the denominations to maintain Godless schools, for himself and p,uch as agree with him, or as a particular favor to Otago, Presbyterian schools here, and refuse to allow a shilling to be given out of the common taxation to aid the denominations. He will permit us to have schools for ourselves, provided we bear ourselves the entire expense of their maintenance. What does our contemporary mean ? Is it that we should be very thankful to be allowed to spend our own money on our own schools ? He seems to think it is a great condescension on his part, as well as an act of great liberality to permit us to reside in the Colony at all. It is an act of grace. "We have no right to be here. We should, therefore, pay our money to educate his children, and be thankful that we are not called upon to feed and cloth© them as well. What our contemporary says, amounts to this, and a good deal more besides. Well, all we can say is this, if matters come to the worst we must be prepared for the worst. Our fathers were, in their day, considered very impertinent and very disloyal for complaining at being compelled to pay tithes to men whose chief business it seemed to be to call them idolatrous papists, and oppose their admission to the rights and privileges of citizens and free men in the land of their birth, and the land that had been the home of their ancestors for more than a thousand years before the new-fangled religion had been heard of. And now it appears that we, their sons, are to be hunted and branded as traitors because we complain of being compelled to pay our money to maintain an anti- Catholic system of education, to keep in power a set of men whose business it seems to be to designate us as men opposed to progress, and our clergy as drones and designing knaves. For what is the meaning of the following words of the ' Guardian,' " And the Tablet is not warranted in -wrongfully creating a prejudice against the institutions of the community where it is published with perfect freedom, notwithstanding its virulent opposition to constituted authority." How very loyal the ( Griiardian ' is when the institutions of the country are in accordance with its tyrannical ideas ! But what would be its ideas of its rights and duties, and what its estimate of constituted authority, were the picture reversed? Suppose the v ';ist majority of the people were Catholics, that in all the schools supported by the general taxation - all the teachers were Catholics, that the religious teaching insisted on in all the schools was distinctly and emphatically Catholic, that Protestant children were obliged to assist at this instruction, unless withdrawn from it by their parents, that hardly any other schools' existed in. the country, that all attempts to obtain a share of the monies contributed by all, in aid of Proteitant or undenominational schools, wore ridiculed as attempts to uphold shams and the schemes of idlers, and successfully resisted. Would our contemporai'v confine himself to the species of agitation, and the mild, language with which we meet the injustice of which we are the victims? Lot our -jon temporary lay hte hand to his heart, and consulting his conscience answer that question. Let him examine himself on this subject, and perhaps he will feel ashamed of haviiig suggested to the G-overument the propriety of prosecuting us for our " virulent opposition to constituted authority." Our contemporary is another illustration of what we have observed for very many years, that our liberals are the veriest tyrants towards all who oppose them.